BB Psns: GGCFF-->PG/SG/SF/PF/C-->1.2.3.4.5

[Kibitzer]

A little BB history (from my personal archive, stored in my cranium).

Flash back about 50+ years. BB lineups (and box scores) and offensive strategy were predicated om lineups comprising 2 G's, 2 , and 1 C (that big guy who usually posted up with his back to the basket).

Fast forward a few years (late 50's-early 60's) and a very crafty coach named Red Auerbach redefined the roles for his Boston Celtics, thus: PG (Cooz), SG (Sharman), SF (Heinsohn), PF (Satch), and C (Russ). This system clicked for 8 NBA Championships in a row, plus a few more, even as players left and were replaced by others.

What I refer to here as Red's creation became the model, copied almost everywhere. The greatest emulation was arguably the '69 Knicks: PG (Clyde), SG (Earl the Pearl). SF (Dollar Bill), PF (DeBusschere), and C (Willis).

At some point, somebody assigned numerical designations to these now universally accepted positions/roles: PG-1, SG-2, SF-3, PF-4, and C-5. This system used to be the private reserve of the most (self-appointed) "hip" BB aficionados, but it is now ubiquitously used. Indeed, many fans and observers consider the 1.2.3.4.5 designations like Holy Writ, but coaches like Geno are much more flexible in their deployment of players on offense.

Even the box scores have finally succumbed, just a little, to changing roles in lineups. We even see box scores with 3 or a C/F.

What's next? A "W" on a box score? Yikes!

 

[johnnyc]

What I refer to here as Red's creation became the model, copied almost everywhere. The greatest emulation was arguably the '69 Knicks: PG (Clyde), SG (Earl the Pearl). SF (Dollar Bill), PF (DeBusschere), and C (Willis).

The Pearl did not arrive until 1972. Dick Barnett was the starter on the 69 squad.

 

[Kibitzer]

The Pearl did not arrive until 1972. Dick Barnett was the starter on the 69 squad.

Good catch.

Right combo, wrong season, 40+ years ago. Not so bad.

 

[Kibitzer]

A little factoid about the Celtics of the '60's and the Knicks of '69 and '71. Aside from playing beautiful team basketball and winning NBA championships, they both had Jewish coaches with identical nicknames: "Red" Auerbach and "Red" Holtzman.

There was another, um, shall we say less successful coach who packed arenas nightly and had the same characteristics. He was "Red" Klotz and he coached the Washington Generals, perpetual punching bag opponents of the Harlem Globetrotters.

 

[huskyd]

A little factoid about the Celtics of the '60's and the Knicks of '69 and '71. Aside from playing beautiful team basketball and winning NBA championships, they both had Jewish coaches with identical nicknames: "Red" Auerbach and "Red" Holtzman.

There was another, um, shall we say less successful coach who packed arenas nightly and had the same characteristics. He was "Red" Klotz and he coached the Washington Generals, perpetual punching bag opponents of the Harlem Globetrotters.

I sat next to Red A. a few times at the Washington Jewish Federation Hall of Fame charity event. He couldn't light it, but he was latched to his cigar as if it were an appendage. I asked him about some of his old Celtic teams, of which he was inordinately proud. How would they do against today's best? He smiled through his cigar and winked at me. Sad to see him go.

 

[UcMiami]

Kib - one of the changes that goes hand in hand with the changing terminology has been the physical change and skill sets associated with basketball players. At the beginning of your sequence (1950s) set shots were the norm and few players other than centers could actual dunk a ball. ('Airtime' for any player was almost non-existent!) Today with centers shooting threes and PGs soaring in for dunks and with everyone shooting jump shots the lines become more and more blurred. And teams rotate responsibilities on each offensive set - guards post up, post players are the primary point person, etc. on any given play.

 

[JordyG]

Kib - one of the changes that goes hand in hand with the changing terminology has been the physical change and skill sets associated with basketball players. At the beginning of your sequence (1950s) set shots were the norm and few players other than centers could actual dunk a ball. ('Airtime' for any player was almost non-existent!) Today with centers shooting threes and PGs soaring in for dunks and with everyone shooting jump shots the lines become more and more blurred. And teams rotate responsibilities on each offensive set - guards post up, post players are the primary point person, etc. on any given play.

And those changes are closely aligned with the rule changes that limited physical play in the Association allowing certain skills and body types to come to the fore.

 

[Kibitzer]

Kib - one of the changes that goes hand in hand with the changing terminology has been the physical change and skill sets associated with basketball players. At the beginning of your sequence (1950s) set shots were the norm and few players other than centers could actual dunk a ball. ('Airtime' for any player was almost non-existent!) Today with centers shooting threes and PGs soaring in for dunks and with everyone shooting jump shots the lines become more and more blurred. And teams rotate responsibilities on each offensive set - guards post up, post players are the primary point person, etc. on any given play.

Your comments are spot on. Let me add to them,

Last year, Gary Washburn (Boston Globe) broke down the Celtics roster into four categories: back court; wings: swings: and bigs. Obviously one in the back must be the PG and the coach could either "go big" or "go small" by adroitly deploying his swings or reinforcing bigs or wings.

How would our UConn roster fit this scheme? Let me try.

Back court (BC): Crystal Dangerfield, Saniya, Molly, TLaw.
Wings (W): Lou, Kia.
Swings (S): Pheesa, Gabby.
Bigs (B): Nat, Kyla​

Theoretically, Geno could start or play 1 BC, 2 W, 1 S, and 1 B.
OR... ("big"): 1 BC, 2 S, and 2B.
OR... ("small"): 2 BC, 2 W, and 1 S

More fun to contenplate than the suspense about the future of the MKW brand.